Town Hall Meeting July 15, 2009 Manchester, NH. Issues submitted to IFTA, Inc. One USDOT Number – multiple IFTA licensees 3% Audit Requirement New VT Surcharge Re-Examination and Re-Audit/Reasonable Cause How to get rid of the gas tax CDs for ABM. Multiple accounts tied to one USDOT number
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Issues submitted to IFTA, Inc. One USDOT Number – multiple IFTA licensees 3% Audit Requirement New VT Surcharge Re-Examination and Re-Audit/Reasonable Cause How to get rid of the gas tax CDs for ABM
Multiple accounts tied to one USDOT number Two accounts active; one inactive In this example, a carrier allowed two owner/operators to use its USDOT number to apply for an IFTA license. One of those owner/operators did not file tax returns and the license was revoked. The carrier received IFTA citations because of the owner/operator with a revoked license.
IFTA Audit Committee's survey on the 3% audit coverage requirement. Although 35 jurisdictions responded to the survey that the 3% requirement is appropriate (compared to 14 who responded that the requirement is too high, 1 who responded that the requirement is too low), support for change to the 3% requirement is exactly even, 25 for and 25 against. Also, 32 jurisdictions responded they encountered difficulty in meeting the 3% requirement and provided various reasons.
Since there still seems to be some concerns regarding the 3% requirement, is there plan to review the 3% requirement?
How is the 3% requirement actually arrived at so that one can say whether it is appropriate or not?
Has the 3% requirement been compared to other yardsticks to see whether it is too high or too low? I have taken a look at some other revenue departments' website and found that risk assessment contributes a lot to the appropriate level of audit coverage, so that a fixed audit coverage may not work all the time.
Should risk and potential revenue loss be considered instead of a blanket 3% requirement? I also found in one website that considering the risk, targeted audit coverage on a specific sector is just around 1.2%, so that the department can focus their attention and resources to other higher risk sectors.
Should some flexibility be provided on the 3% requirement, or are there alternatives to just auditing 3% (such as demonstration of internal control) that we can consider so that we can make best use of our audit resources?
Re-Examination and Re-Audit Provisions Reasonable Cause